Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

Neutrino

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
879
I wonder what Richmond hill ridership would be if train frequency would be same as UPE.
I don't know if it would be that high because RH GO lacks the line 2 connection of UPX which likely generates a lot of ridership. Plus most RH GO riders arrive at stations by car unlike UPX which is based on walk-ins and transfers.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
I wonder how this line has affected the ridership on the Kitchener line, but it's safe to say that this is huge ridership.
Observationally/anecdotally virtually no Weston commuters use GO.....they get better service on UP and get a seat (EB morning peak they never would on GO.

There seems to be a small number of people getting off EB trains to switch to UP.......but the loss of regular riders from Weston far exceeds this.

That said, Weston was nowhere near the top of the list of busy stations on KW trains.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
799
So now that UPX riders get partial fare integration, ridership increases. Who knew? If the UPX was electrified and become part of the standard TTC subway system ridership would increase 10-fold overnight and with a new station at HYT#10 to serve Humber/Woodbine and new stations at Eglinton, St.Clair, and City Place area, ridership would be 20X higher than it is now.

Another example of how Metrolinx completely screwed up the transit file.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
1,821
So now that UPX riders get partial fare integration, ridership increases. Who knew? If the UPX was electrified and become part of the standard TTC subway system ridership would increase 10-fold overnight and with a new station at HYT#10 to serve Humber/Woodbine and new stations at Eglinton, St.Clair, and City Place area, ridership would be 20X higher than it is now.

Another example of how Metrolinx completely screwed up the transit file.
It's not like they really have a choice here, there are limitations at Pearson Airport and at Union Station. What the line has pushed for is the Weston corridor enhancements, which is a precursor to RER. Honestly, the UPX was an extremely important step in proving to the public that RER works, and that fare integration is necessary for its success. If Metrolinx doesn't use this as evidence to the City of Toronto to push for Fare Integration, then I honestly do not know what will work.

It's also noted that according to Metrolinx, the vast majority of people (75%) are traveling to and from the airport (old statistics, but the pattern still holds) (https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...idership-up-but-still-heavily-subsidized.html). With this in mind, the only ridership it may have taken from is from the Pearson Express bus and Weston Station, with the rest being new ridership being new ridership to the airport.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
1,821

dad pad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
19
Reaction score
12
Have you opened an urban dictionary lately?

The internationally agreed definition of rapid transit is based on speed rather than full grade separation.

Grade separations are strongly preferred, indeed, but let's consider Eglinton Crosstown's nature of clean-sheet rapid-transit-league surface crossings should not be judged by the book cover when such rapid transit systems exist.

There is often more than one kilometer between level crossings in some sections, and they are optimized near stops where you can have transit-priority-optimized farside stops.

There are some systems worldwide that have achieved rapid transit speed specifications despite a few surface crossings.

Again, clean sheet modern designs, not retrofits (Boston Green Line, King TtC, etc) that actually achieved internationally-recognized rapid transit dictionary definition and specifications achieved for real, despite having a few surface crossings.

Yes, yes, yes, dictionary usually say "common characteristic" includes level crossing, but it is not a mandatory characteristic -- LOOK AT THE DICTIONARY AGAIN FOR CHRISSAKES -- like railroad crossing gates are okay -- and some newer modern cleansheet well-traffic-priority-optimized stiplight intersections (that are almost as good at guaranteeing rail right of way as a crossing gate, using huge number of cleansheet modifications (without needing a crossing gatebar).

[Webster Dictionary] rapid transit - a system of public transportation in an urban area, using electric trains running along an unimpeded right of way

[Collins English Dictionary] rapid transit (adjective): relating to the rapid transportation of the public, usually within a particular, often urban, area

Unimpeded can include railroad crossing gates but nowadays includes proper modern traffic priority systems (the kind that is timed in advance & function as well as crossing gates, but using standard stoplights and no lowerable bars). Some dictionaries, especially older ones, do exclude surface routes, but most dictionaries now focus on the "rapidness" of the rapid transit.

For "rapid" -- the focus of rapid transit -- the speed specifications vary a lot from industry standard and country to country, and government standards, but the generally agreed definition is very similar to metro subway speeds -- minimum speed being a match to the slowest parts of the TTC subway which is fast compared to ordinary buses and ordinary mixed-traffic streetcars.

Some of these cleansheet rapid transit level crossings uses GPS to know approaching LRVs and hold green until whooshing past to a farside stop, so that such intersections, often run thru computer simulations, on a ROW from scratch, is rarely ever red or blocked for the LRT route,

There are indeed flaws in Crosstown, but some assumptions are being made in this thread about the presumed quality of clean-sheet-design rapid transit level crossings.

But you are judging books by the cover without trying modern clean sheet recentbuild rapid transit level crossings.

I have been on LRTs with newbuild level crossings, that are much faster than King TTC or Boston Green Line. Have YOU ridden a non-legacy rapid transit system.

Rapid transit is rapid transit -- if it achieves a rapid-transit speed average (including stopping time), it becomes rapid transit.

View attachment 144382

An LRT exactly like Crosstown,

With some Level crossings.

Actually with a faster speed than Torontos subway downtown section.

Yes! Level crossing LRT (including stopping time) can beat the average speed of the U part of Yonge Subway!!

For real, actually built!

Confirmed. Actually ridden. Plenty of anecdotes.

Try the proper cleansheet new designs with intersections built from scratch on a totally new line. Not King. Not Boston Green line.

Please do not reply until you ride these proper cleansheet rapid transit level crossing systems that actually exist.

You rode King TTC Pilot? Not modern cleansheet rapid transit surface LRT design.
You rode Boston Green Line? Not modern cleansheet rapid transit surface LRT design.
They may be a "bit" faster than legacy streetcars, but not subway-speed like the Seattle transit-priority design.

Any preemptive categorical claim otherwise is simply guaranteed misinformation based on an assumption from legacy systems. Full stop.

Yes, I know it is Toronto. Yes, I know that the transit priority systems can be watered down. Yes, it can happen. But the diagrams are amazingly identical to the super fast level LRT systems... Have YOU compared the LRT diagrams? I have. The planning drawings of the intersections are quite amazingly similiar to the "rapid-speed-reached" surface crossing systems. They have lots of dedicated right-of-ways (just like Seattle or Crosstown) but with a few surface crossings (just like Seattle or Crosstown) with very optimized traffic priority systems (just like Seattle where trains almost never stop for red lights, and with minimal disruption to cars apparently -- they had a great transit-priority upgrade that delivered great results with trains only stopping at stations -- ).

I can honestly say I won't judge a book by the cover since the characteristics amplify efficiency of traffic priority far beyond Spadina/King -- even before adding the electronics/lights.

Also, don't forget there is -- in the drawings I am looking at on my screen -- Super long platformless sections on both sides of all surface crossings (so advance red-light safing of intersections, just like advance closing of railroad crossing gates....so whoosh thru green lights). and no left turns allowed for long kilometer stretches of Eglinton. They've all been blocked off with curbs - cant turn left into a plaza anymore. And there is no frogs/switches/etc -- just straight track that LRVs can whoosh 50kph (just like Seattle) straight thru a green light.

No skimpy hobbled "TTC transit priority system" that functions far more imperfectly. No need to slow long in advance of farside platform statons. That is not necessary to slow down if intersection is safed/secure (unlike Spadina) -- a special modern cleansheet traffic priority intersection like the Seattle ones (with a "LRT Train" logo next to red light, to tell drivers that it's a railroad crossing in progress; it helps drivers to be a bit patient a little longer, knowing it's a train causing a slightly-longer-than-usual red light) -- will go red to cars similarly in advance like a crossing gate, and sensors make sure cars are verified stopped.

Safed on time (with plenty of time for countdown crosswalks to finish) and the intersection is often red for several seconds before the "proceed" indication is given to LRV. And seconds later, WHOOOSH 50KPH LRV ZOOMS THE GREEN LIGHT (as videoed) at full momentum, treating the intersection like a crossing gate....... (except no gate needed to be lowered!) cuz approaching LRV that goes at predictable speeds over blocks much longer than those on Spadina, and the drawings show shape of the intersections is track speed optimized, unlike the Spadina crossings. There's no left turns to block LRV long before countdown crosswalks finish, many of them have clear unobstructed LRV-only-lanes (no left turns possible at all) that are straight lines for practically about roughly a full kilometer before the level-crossing intersections -- plenty of time for sensors to tell the countdown crosswalks to finish long before the LRV finally coasts through at full momentum. Making possible crossing-gate-quality intersection operation (without lowerable bars) actually ridden for real, like the Seattle one.

A well-timed transit priority system safes the intersection in advance (but not too long in advance like Edmonton crossing-gate bugs). Then once the priority system is done for a crossing LRV, there is often an unusually-long extended green for cars/pedestrians, clearing the cars quite well. This gives drivers compensation for the long red. Late-arriving cars then often don't notice there was a long-extended-red (from a gateless "crossing-gate-quality" transit-priority intersection). Minimizing disruptions to automobiles and pedestrians!

To mods: please move my posts and the other offtopic posts, to the correct ontopic thread.

Okay. Now that I've shut down the misinformation. Back on topic to Union Pearson Express.
This is a great post and I think this should be explained to the public at large as often as possible. With the internet of things and automation becoming more commonplace, I think the public would be more receptive to this concept than in the past.

In the past, these sort of schemes would often be seen as a 'zero-sum game', but even if the LRT are human driven, I believe people can now more easily understand that the traffic lights are being 'automated' as part of an invisible system to reduce the friction between transit and personal vehicles. We are now fully into the IoT age of technology but our transit, due to various factors, is lagging behind.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
799
The UPX, save electrification, is already a grade-separated subway/Metro line. Shame Metrolinx has gone out of its way to make sure no one uses it. Electrify it, add Humber, Eglinton, St,Clair, CityPlace stations and allow the trains to stop at EN GO and Toronto would have a new 25 km subway system for well less than $1 billion and could be up and running in 18 months.
 

idc24

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
186
Reaction score
115
The UPX, save electrification, is already a grade-separated subway/Metro line. Shame Metrolinx has gone out of it`s way to make sure no one uses it. Electrify it, add Humber, Eglinton, St,Clair, CityPlace stations and allow the trains to stop at EN GO and Toronto would have a new 25 km subway system for well less than $1 billion and could be up and running in 18 months.
UPX has really become a preview of what RER/SmartTrack will be. UP express is really just the brand name for what is essentially phase 1a of RER.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,642
UPX has really become a preview of what RER/SmartTrack will be. UP express is really just the brand name for what is essentially phase 1a of RER.
Planning, or even speculating, on a route for the DRL West is stalled because so much hinges on the UPE.
If the UPE is fully utilized, as suggested above, the DRL West would follow a different route.
If UPE stays a Union to Pearson Express, as the Liberals originally designed it, then the DRL would basically have to follow this route to Etobicoke.
 

Top